{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff's claim has prescribed under the Prescription Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Accident date 12 April 2018, summons served 22 March 2023, three-year period"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the earlier proceedings HC 3278/21 interrupted prescription","issue_type":"legal","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Proceedings instituted June 2021, abandoned as defective"}
{"issue_text":"When the cause of action arose for prescription purposes","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Accident date, medical reports dates"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff instituted action for damages arising from a road traffic accident on 12 April 2018. The defendants raised a special plea of prescription, arguing the claim was instituted outside the three-year prescriptive period. The plaintiff contended prescription was interrupted by earlier proceedings and that his cause of action only arose later when medical reports were completed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases